Full text of "Two weights, two measures [microform]"

CIHM
Microfiche
Series
(Monographs)

ICMH

Collection de
microfiches
(rnonographles)

[g|

Canadian li.«tituta for Historical Micraraproductiona / Institut Canadian da microraproductiona hiatoriquaa

1996

Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original
copy available for filming. Features of this copy which
may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of
the images in the reproduction, or which may
significantly change the usual method of filming are
checlted below.

D
D
D

ColouTed covers/
Couverture de couleur

Covers damaged /
Couverture endoinmagee

Covets restored and/or laminated /
r^ouverture restaurie et/ou pelliaiMe

Cover title missing / L^ litre de couverture manque

Cdcured maps / Cartes geographiques en couleur

Cokxired inK (i.e. other than lilue or txack) /
ErKre de couleur (i.e. autre que tileue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or Illustrations /
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material /
RelM avec dautres documents

Only edition availal>le /
Seule Mition diaponilile

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along Interior margin / La reliure serrie peut
causer de Tombre ou de la distorsion le long de
la maige int^rieure.

Blank leaves added during restorations may appear
within the text. Whenever possible, ttiese have
been omitted from flming / II se peut que certaines
pages blanches ajouties km dune restauration
apparaissent dans le tsxle, mais, loisque cela etait
possible, ces pages n'ont pas Me iHm^.

AddWonal comments /
Commentalres suppWmentalres:

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilieur examplaire qu'il lui a
6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem-
plaire qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bibli-
ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite,
ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la m^h-
ode normale de f ilmage sont indiqu^s cl-dessous.

I I Cokxired pages / Pages de couleur

I I Pages damaged / Pages endommagdes

I I Pages restored and/or laminated /
' — ' Pages rsstaurees et/ou pellicuiees

[^ Pages discokiured, stained or foxed /
^^ Pages dtoikir^es, tachetees ou pk)uees

I I Pages detached/ Pages detachees

1^ Showthrough/ Transparence

I I Quality of print varies /

' — ' Oualite inegale de I'lmpression

□ :^

Indiides supplementary material /
Comprend du materiel suppMmentaire

I I Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
' — ' slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image / Les pages
totalement ou partiellement ot>scurcies par un
feulllet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont Hi filmees
a nouveau de fa(on a obtenir la meilleure
Image possible.

I I Opposing pages with varying colouration or
' — ' discotourations are filmed twk;e to ensure the
best possible image / Les pages s'opposant
ayant des colorations variables ou des decol-
orattons sont fllmtes deux fois afin d'obtenir la
meilieur image possible.

Ci docwmnt tit film* au trjx dt tMueiion Indiqut ei-dtiteus

1DX 14X ItX

12X

1*X

20X

2«X

Th* copy filmed hara hM bMn raproducsd tlianki
10 th« ganarmity of:

National Library of Canada

L'axamplaira lUmt ful raproduit grlca 1 la
gtniroait* da:

Bibliothaqua nationala du Canada

Tha imagat appaaring hara ara tha bait quality
poMJbia comidaring tha condition and lagibiiity
of tha original copy and in kaoping with tha
filming contract apacificationa.

Laa imagat tuivantaa ont M raproduita$ avae la
plus grand loin. compta tanu da la condition at
da la naitat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an
conformity avac laa condition* du contrat da
nimaga.

Original copioa in prinlad papor covara ara fllmad
baginning with tha front covar and ending on
tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa-
*ion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tho
firtt paga with a printad or illuatratad Impraa-
•ion. and anding on tha laat paga «»ith a printad
or illuatratad impraaaion.

Tha laat racordad frama on aach microf Icha
ihall contain tha symbol — » I moaning "CON-
TINUEO"). or tho symbol ▼ (moaning "END"),
whiehavar applioa.

Laa aaamplairaa originaux dont la eouvarture »n
papiar est imprimaa sont filmas en commancani
par la premier plat at an tarminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinia
d'Impraaaion ou d'illuatration, soit par la second
plat, salon la eaa. Tous les autras axemplairas
originaux sont filmia an commencant par la
premiere paga qui comporte une empreinte
d'Impreation ou d'illuatration at en terminant par
la darnitra page qui comporte une tell*
amprainta.

Un dee symbolaa suivants spparaltra sur la
darni*re imege do cheque microfiche, selon le
eaa: la symbole ^» signifle "A SUIVRE ". le
aymbole ▼ signifle "FIN".

Mep*. plate*, chartt. etc.. may be filmed at
diff*rent reduction retio*. Thoi* too large to be
entirely included in one exposure ere filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bonom. as many frames es
required. The following diagrams Illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent *ira
filmta * da* taux da r*duction diff*rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour ttra
reproduit en un soul clich*. 11 est film* * psrtir
da Tangle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche * dro'ta,
et de haut an bas, en prenant le nombre
d'image* n*c*«saire. Lea diagrammea suivants
illuatrant la method*.

1 2 3

JMICROCOPY RKOLUTION TEST CHART

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CHART No. 2)

^ APPLIED IN/HGE Inc

S^ 1653 East Main Street

TJZ Rochester. New York 14609 USA

'^^^ (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone

as (716) 268 - 5989 - Fax

s**<i

!-<•*?

•v^

4>w

;%.:^.'"

jl-5"i-.~-Si ■

Montreal, March jiid, 1904

In tbe matter or

Thk City ok Montrlal,

Petitioner in respect of the improir-
ment 0/ the approaches to Wel-
lington Btiiige on the Xvrth Side;

The acquisition oi the property of
Dame Marj^aret Brennaii, widow
of the late Michael Patrick Ryan,
in his lifetime of the City of Mont-
real, Esquire, and Collector of Her
Majesty's Customs at the Port of
Montreal :

The said Makgaket Hrennan Rva?

Proprietor of Lot No. 1414 of the
Official Plan and Book of Refer-
ence of St. .4nf'i Ward in the
.laid City of Montreal.

To THE Honorable L. O. David,

City Clerk of the City of Montreal.

Dear Sir,— The und<;rsjgi.ed beg, respect-
fully, to make to you the following report
in regard to the proceedings herein: —

1. Mrs. Ryan is the owner of vacant land
in St. Ann's Ward, in the City of Montreal,
adjac-nt to the Wellington Bridge, bounded
on one side by St. Leon Street, on another
side by McCord Street, on a third side by
Olier Street, and on the fourth side by the
prc^rty of Peter Donovan, Esquire, — said
piecr. of land being No. 1414 on the said
Official Plan, and comprising, according to
ror^surements ma>le by the City of Montreal,
33,082 square feet, of which the City is
seeking to acquire from the proprietor,
32,058 square feet.

2. The City applied to the Court by
petition, for the appointment of Commis-

sionen to value the said land, and asked
that the Recorder of the City of Montreal,
and A. Langevin, and John Hamilton Ferns,
two of the Assessors and employees of the
said City should be the three Commissioners
on behalf of the City, and they were accord-
ingly appointed. The undersigned were
appointed the Commissioners on behalf of
Mrs. Ryan.

3. At the first meeting of the ssid Com-
n)issioners on the 13th January, 1904, Coun-
sel for Mrs. Ryan took exception to the
jurisdiction of the Commission and filed,
in writing, the following protest:

" On behalf of the udd Petitioner, Mn. Rju,
the undenigned reipectflilly except to the jurisdic-
tion of the CommlHion to fix the price to be paid
for the property of the laid Petitioner to be taken
by the City of Montreal for the improvement of
the approaches to Wellington Street Bridge on the
north side.

MoMTUAl., ijthjimnary, 1904.

(Sgd.) MACliASTER ft HICKSON,

Attorneys for Petitioner."

No votf wa> taken as to whether this
exception was well founded or not, but the
Recorder ruled that there .as jurisdiction
and required the parties to proceed.

4- Counsel for the proprietor then called
the attention of the ( -mmissioners to the
law under which the acquisition of this
property was authorized, namely, 3 Edward
VII., chapter '2, section 52, subsection 16,
and pointed out that no part of the said Act
cor'tained any authorization to tht Com-
missioners to determine the amount that
should be paid for the p perty to the Pro-
prietor, and that the pr ..sions of the City
Charter applicable to expropriations in the
Reneral interest, namely Articles 421 ,n 445,
were not applicable to the presei- case
(which was an excepted case)— the statute
simply authorizing the City to make the
improvements, the cost of which would be
approximately, $15,672.00 and tc purchase
the land at the market value of land in the
vicinity.

5. Counsel for the Proprietor, therefore,
asked the Commissioners to state whether
iu determining the market vaue of the land,
they felt themselves in any way bound by
the sum mentioned ($15,672.00), for the
cost of the improvement. Counsel, there-
upon read the section, subsection 16 of the
jaid Act 3, Edward VII., chapter 62, sec-
tion 52, which is as follows:

" To improve the approaches to Wellington
bridge on the north side, in accordance with the
plan marked Y, and deposited in the office of the
citjr surveyor, at an approximate cost of $15,673.00.

The cost of such improvement shall be paid two-
fifth b/ the proprietors of St. Ann's Ward, and the
other three-fifths by the city, the amount to be paid
for the property to be the market value of the property
in that vicinity,

6. The undersigned there and then ex-
pressed the opinion that all they had to do,
assuming they had jurisdiction, was to de-
termine the market value of the property
which the City was seeking to acquire,
uninfluenced by the consideration that the

City was authorized to expend $15,672 as
the cost of the improvement.

7. The Recorder, on behalf of himself
and the other Commissioners appointed
by the City, declined to make any
decision upon that question, stating that it
might turn out to be unnecessary so to do
after hearing the evidence. The Recorder
further stated that there was a judgment
of the Court ordering them to proceed and
that they must go forward with the evi-
dence.

8. Counsel for the Proprietor then stated
that, of course, his client must submit to
the ruling, but that it must be understood
that they proceeded under reserve of all
their rights, and under the exception filed.

9. No evidence was taken that day (13th
January), and the consideration of Mrs.
Ryan's case was not resumed until the 2nd
oay of February, the three other cases hav-
ing been heard in the meantime.

,?;''• J""' N*on, archie. „? o

Aft«,- «,«j • P™Perty m the vicinity
dnles. they each swore that having reS'd
Son^rt 7 °;.P-Pe'^y >" the vicfnity.^S

feet oMalT' "'•^'^'^ '^'' ^'^ 32.058 square
leet Of land would amount to "R^c fi.^ .„
to which they added ?25,646.4o,

"for,o7.2o,i„. feet of rough fence ,„
enclose theresidueofthe lot at f..2r « ,„ _

->^ing,totauu.of....!';:^ ',^;^4^-..

behalf o ^h Tv' ' ^''""^ ^'^° '^^"-d on
Dehalf of the City, signed the statement

bm he was not examined under oath in th"s

)

Mr Nelson, who was the principal wit-
ness for the City, admitted, on cross-
exammation, that a neighbouring property
The Steel & Paint Works, used^^for ^2^
factunng purposes, had been purchased at
^^■73 per square foot, for the land, exclu-
sive of some buildings erected upon it, and
for the other part, at $2.45 per square foot
for the land, including old buildings upon
>t. Mr. Nelson, in addition, on cross-
examination, made the important statement
that the Steel & Paint property was only
1,000 feet distant from the property of Mrs'
Ryan, that Mrs. Ryan's property, as to situ-
ation, proximity, adaptability for develop-
ment and size, had a greater resemblance
to the Steel & Paint property than any other
property in the vicinity, and he also estab-
hshed that the purchase of the Steel & Paint
properties took place at or about the date
of the passing of the Act, 3 Edward VII
chapter 62, section 52, subsection 16 au-
thorizing the acquisition of the property in

question, and that he knew of no other sales
of property in the vicinity that had taken
place at or about the date of the Act au-
tnonzing the purchase in this case, except
the sales and purchases of the Steel & Paint
prq)erties.

Apart from Mr. Chartrand, who gave
evidence on the same lines as Mr. Nelson,
no other witnesses were called for the City
and the Proprietor then proceeded to make
her proof.

II. Among the witnesses examined for
Mrs. Ryan, and who valued her property
according to the standard prescribed in the
Statute, namely, the market value of the
property in the vicinity, were:—

I. Bernard Tansey, Esquire, a large pro-
prietor of real estate in the City of Mont-
real, who valued the property at from $1.25
to $1.50 per square foot.

II. Henry Ward, a real estate agent of
large experience, with an intimate know-

ledge of sales of property in the vicinity,
who valued it at from $1.25 to $1.50 per
square foot.

III. G. W. Parent, a real estate agent of
large experience, with an intimate know-
ledge of the sales in the vicinity, and a
gentleman who has frequently acted as a
rommissioner to value property in different
parts of the City. He valued the property
at from $1.25 to $1.50 per square foot.

IV. A. E. Merrill, also a real estate
agent of experience, who valued the pro-
perty at frc.n $1.25 to $1.50 per square foot.

V. Kenneth Blackwell, the President of
the Canada Steel Company, to wit, the
Company which purchased the land of the
like character and Hke situation in the im-
mediate vicinity, for in part, $1.73 per
square foot, exclusive of buildings, and in
part, $2.45 per square foot, inclusive of
buildings. He valued Mrs. Ryan's land at
$1.25 per square foot.

VI. Charles F. Smith, the head of The
James McCready Co., Limited, a Director
of the Merchants Bank and a manufacturer
of very large experience, who, with others,
testified that Mrs. Ryan's land was exceed-
ingly w.ell situated for manufacturing and
commercial purposes, possessing accessibil-
ity on three sides and ught from three
streets that bounded it, as well as from
Gallery Square opposite it. He testified
that the property was admirably situated
for a manufacturing establishment and was
worth $1.25 per square foot.

VII. James Reid Wilson, of the firm of
Thos. Robertson & Co., a Director of the
Canada Steel Company, who, personally,
made the purchases of the land referred to
for the Steel Company, a gentleman largely
connected with manufacturing business and
familiar with the value of land in the vicin-
ity, testified to the adaptability of Mrs.
Ryan's property for manufacturing and
commercial purposes owing to its accessibil-

ity on three sides and the certainty of good
light from the open character of the sur-
roundings-a street on each of three sides
and an open square in front.

Mr. Wilson testified that the fair market
value of the property was $1.25 per square
foot. He also testified that in his opinion
the Steel Company had paid more than the
market value for the Steel Company's pre-
mises, owing to the necessity of acquiring
It to enlarge their business. But, making
allowance for this, he testified that the land
of the Stcd Company was worth at least
$1.25 per square foot, and that Mrs. Ryan's
land was quite as valuable and as well
adapted for commercial and manufacturing
development as the land of the Steel Com-
pany.

Mr. Wilson does not know Mrs. Ryan
personally, and neither he Mr. Smith, Mr
Blackwell, nor any of the other witnesses
have any busmess relations, with her. She
is an aged lady and, being stricken with ill-
's

iiess, was not able to leave her house or
instruct her Counsel during the conduct of
the inquiry.

12. In addition to the foregoing, it was
established by several witnesses that the pro-
perty was well adapted for a Hotel site, that
a great concourse of people passed it on the
thoroughfares bounding it, and that it had
the advantage, over the Steel property, of
being on the north or City side of the Canal,
and thus free from the obstruction arising
from the frequent opening of the WeUing-
ton Bridge during the season of navigation.
It was also established that the labor mar-
ket was as good, if not better, on the north
side of the, Canal as on the south side, that
it would be easy to connect the property
by a spur with the Grand Trunk Railway,
and that its being situated nearer to the
centre of the City than the Steel Company
property, which was beyond the Bridge on
the south side of the Canal, gave it a cor-
responding advantage over that land.
14

13- Counsel foi the Proprietor urged
that it was unfair to take as a standard of
value the prices realized from small proper-
ties in the vicinity, only suitable for small
structures or tenement houses, and with
limited accessibility and light, and that the
true test was a comparison of the prices
realized from the sales of property of the
like character and those similarly situated
and of similar adaptability. In addition to
the Steel Company property, they estab-
lished that a property somewhat nearer the
City, namely, at the corner of Queen and
Common Streets, was sold about four years
ago to the City for $1.65 per square foot,
and that the rear portion of this same pro-
perty was afterwards sold to one, Desor-
meau, for the purposes of a hotel or restau-
rant, for the sum of $2.72>4 per square
foot, though there was not at that point the
crowds that congregate opposite the pro-
perty of Mrs. Ryan, at every opening and
closing of Wellington Bridge.

14. At the conclusion of the second day
of the evidence, the Counsel for the Pro-
prietor stated hat they desired to call the
particular attention of the Commissioners
to the true construction of subsection i6
above referred to (paragraph 5), and sub-
mitted that it was the obligation of the
Commissioners to determine the price that
should be paid for the property according
to the mark<!t value of land in the vicinity
of the like character and like adaptabilify
regardless of the amount specified in the
first clause of subsection 16 as being applic-
able tr the improvement of the approaches
to the Bridge. Subsection 16 may be re-
pealed :

•'16. To improre the approachei to Wellington
bridge on the north »ide. in accordance with the
plan marked Y and deposited ih the office of the
City Surveyor, at an approximate cost of $15,672.00.

The cost of such improvement shall be paid two-
fifth, by the proprietors of St. Ann's Ward, and the
other three-fifth, by the city, the amount to be paid
for the property to be the market value of the pro-
perty m that vicinity j "

Counsel submitted that the true meaning
of these two clauses was that the City was
authorized to pay to the proprietor the
market value of the property, and having
thus acquired it, the City was author-
jzed to spend, approximately, $15,672.00 in
improving the approaches, that is to say, in
reducing the land acquired to proper levels ;
in laying down drains and proper founda-
tions, in macadamizing and grading the
approaches ; in constructing the appropriate
sidewalks on either sides of these ap-
proaches leading to the Bridge; in building
boundary walls ; and it may be in planting
trees for ihade, in keeping with the park on
one side of the road— all such constituting
the improvements contemplated to cost
$15,672.00, as distinguished from the price
to be paid for the land, which was to be the
market price thereof, irrespective of any sum
set aside for improvements.

15- It could not be expected that the
Legislature could, for the value of the
«7

land, set up two standards, one controlling
the other and restricting the action of the
Commissioners, who were sworn truly and
faithfully to perform their duties. What
the Legislature intended to set up and did
set up in plain terms, is that the Proprietor
should be paid the fair market value of her
land, that the City would have the power
to acquire the land on paying that price,
and that wlien it acquired the land it should
be authorized to improve it by the expendi-
ture of a sum specified to be the cost of
improvement.

i6. In addition to the testimony referred
to above, it was established that part of the
adjoining property of Peter Donovan, Es-
quire, was sold to the Government of the
Dominion of Canada in 1877 for the sum
of $1.10 per square foot, and that a portion
of the next adjoining property, that of
Jacob Henry Joseph, Esquire, had been
18

purchased by the Government of the Dom-
inion of Canada, in 1877, for the sum of
$1.25 per square foot. It was not pre-
tended that property there had declined
in value. None of the witnesses examined
could cite any sale having taken place,
of property on the banks of the Canal,
for less than $1.00 per foot, even as
far out as the City limits, and the pre-
sent property is situated near the centre of
the commercial life of Montrea'. On the
cwitrary, the only property there that had
been sold in recent years of the like char-
acter, had sold at, at least 75 per cent, ad-
vance on the prices of a quarter of a century
ago. The prices so paid are matt-s of
public record, not merely in th.> Registry
offices, but in the Public Records of the
Dominion of Canada. That being so, Mrs,
Ryan, alone, for the portion of her land
proposed to be taken, would at the moderate
price of $1.23 per square foot, the price
paid to Mr. Joseph, have been entitled to

$40,072.50. Mr. Donovan would have been
entitled to $4,641.25, and leaving out of ac-
count the other two proprietors to be ex-
propriated, Mr. McGurn and Mr. Gallery,
Mrs. Ryan and Mr. Donovan together,
might most reasonably claim the sum of
'r'44,7i37S-

17. In view of these facts and matters
of public record it is inconceivable that the
Legislature could have intended that not
only the improvements could be made, but
that the land could be purchased for the
sum of $15,672. The construction of the
section of the Statute proposed by the Coun-
sel for the Proprietor at once gave a rea-
sonable interpretation to the intention of
the Legislature, and relieved the Commis-
sioners, if they would be relieved, from the
embarrassment to which they imagined they
were subjected.

18. The case was taken en delibiri on
nth February, 1904.

19. No meeting of the Commissioners
took place until the 15th February, 1904,
when after a short delihere, it was moved
by Mr. J. Hamilton Ferns, and seconded
by Mr. Langevin (Commissioners for the
City), that the price for Mrs. Ryan's land
should be 50 cents per square foot.

An adjournment took place until 24th
February, 1904, when it was moved by the
undersigned, Mr. Guerin, and seconded by
Mr. Ford, that the price should be $1.25 per
square foot.

The Recorder thereupon stated that he
had come to the conclusion, having regard
to the two standards set up in the clause,
subsection 16, that the price should be 60
cents per square foot.

20. After discussion, the undersigned
asked that the proceedings of the Commis-
sion should be adjourned till another day
in order to give all parties an opportunity
of fully considering the evidence and arriv-
ing at a proper conclusion. The under-

signed, Michael Guerin, moved, seconded
by Mr. Ford, that the deliberS or advisement
should be adjourned until another day
for the purpose of further consideration.
Messrs. Ferns and Langevin both were
against this, and the Recorder also gave his
casting vote against it.

21. A few minutes before five p.m. on the
same day, the undersigned and the other
Commissioners representing the Proprie-
tors, left the meeting believing that the
Commission would be again summoned to
meet, when a report would be submitted and
they would have the opportunity of further
discussing the matter and of either signing
or putting in their dissent, but the under-
signed have since ascertained that after they
left, the Recorder and the two Assessors
representing the City, sent to an office up-
stairs in the City Hall, for a report which
had previously been prepared under the
instructions of the majority, but which was
never submitted to the undersigned, and

fft

«*>

that in the absence of the undersigned they
proceeded to sign the said report and to
cause it to be delivered at the City Clerk's
Office, as appeared from the endorsation
thereon, at four minutes to five o'clock.
The undersigned never saw the said Report,
or a copy of it, until to-day.

-.'2. The majority of the said Commis-
sioners, in arriving at the conclusion as
above indicated, have deprived the Proprie-
tor of the opportunity of urging the just
grounds upon which the Commission might,
on the evidence, come to a conclusion to
grant a much larger sum to the Proprietor
than that stated in the majority report, and
also of the opportunity for asserting and
demonstrating that the true standard of
value of the property was its market value,
uncontrolled by the cf ideration that a sum
fixed approximately, was authorized for im-
provements.

23. From a letter addressed by the Re-
corder to yourself, and concurred in by the
»3

two City Assessors, it appears that the repre-
sentatives of the City found it necessary to
explain the contents of their Report. In one
paragraph the .Recorder says :

" The Commissioners were perplexed to a certain
extent by the fact that the law autliorizing this ex-
propriation fixed two standards which proved to be
different. In the iirst place the improvements were
sanctioned at an approximate cost of $15,672, but
this was immediately followed by a clause which
sUted that the price to be paid for the property was
" the market value of the property in the vicinity."
The Commissioners have found a discrepancy be-
tween these two standards, and while feeling bound
to a certain degree by the first limitation, as an
estimate approved by the Legislature, have never-
theless striven to do justice to the indemniUries in
the terms of the second standard."

From this statement it is clear that the
Recorder and the City Assessors felt that in
fixing a market value of the property, they
were " bound to a certain degree by the first
limitation" (that is the amount stated for
the cost of the improvement), "as an esti-
mate approved by the Legislature." The
24

Legislature has made no estimate whatever
of the market value of the land and the
Recorder and the Commissioners on behalf
of the City, have treated the sum stated as
costs of improvements as the estimate made
by the Legislature of the market value of
the land. If the sum stated as the cost of
the improvement, is the estimate of the
Legislature, of the market value of the land,
there would be no sum left applicable to
the making of the improvements. The Re-
corder and the Commissioners for the City
have labored under the impression that thf y
were to apply two standards in valuing the
land — standards which they, themselves,
admit to be " different," and between which
there is a " discrepancy." It is respectfully
submitted that the only standard provided
by the Legislature is the market value of
the land, and that the Commissioners should
have completely disregarded the sum men-
tioned as being applicable to the costs of
improvements. Had further discussion of

the Report been permitted, the misconception
of the majority of the Commissioners in this
respect might have been removed. In fact
the undersigned were deprived of the op-
portunity of considering the Report, which
was never submitted to them, and of point-
ing out that in other respects the said Com-
mjssioners have fallen into error of law in
statmg that "the residue of the above de-
scribed piece of land could be acquired bv
the City of Montreal, for the sum of
$637.20, making in all $i9.872,"-being also
at 60 cents per foot. The undersigned are
advised that no such right or option apper-
tains by law to the City.

24. Moreover, the majority of the said
Commissioners, in arriving at a conclusion,
not only failed to submit any report for the
approval or dissent of their fellow-commis-
sioners, but they also put aside all the
evidence taken in the case, and substituted
their own personal opinions for the sworn
and uncontradicted testimony of several of
26

the most respectable men in the City of
Montreal. They have substituted their per-
gonal opinions, though none of th^m can
claim to be experts, that the market value
of Mrs Ryan's land is only 60 cents per

Sr Ir Vr *"' °^ *^ E^^rts for Sle
L>ty, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Chartrand (of
whom It can be said that neither failed in

ftTr *° '^' '^''''' '"'^^^^t)' ^^o valued
tl T .^' *°°*' "^'"S ^ difference

foot, or $6,411.60; and not only did thev
disregard the evidence of the witnesses for
*e Gty. but they disregarded the evidence
of the sales to the Government above re-

Irt '°.'n ^'-'^ ^^ $i-25-the sales to
the Steel Company at $1.73 and $245 per
square foot, and they also disregarded the
weighty testimony of Mr. James Reid Wil-

Blackwell-all of whom are connected with

manufacturing enterprises-two of them

with the great enterprises in the immediate

vicinity, and who not only knew the market
values of land in the vicinity, but were
competent to judge of the adaptability of
this particular property for commercial and
manufacturing purposes. They have also
disregarded the testimony of the Estate
Agents, based upon their personal experi-
ence, and of Mr. Tansey, who is a large
estate owner in the ward.

25. If the Commissioners may put aside
all the testimony of respectable men on both
sides of the case then t' ■ taking of evidence
is a mere farce and an expense to both the
proprietors and to the City. It would be
far easier to dispense with the useless cere-
mony of administering the oath and hearnig
testimony at length, and to say at once to
the Commissioners for the City who are,
too, the paid employees of the City : " You
are masters of the situation; you have the
right to give us what you please ; we are in
your hands and at your mercy." It is bad
enough that in an arbitration proceeding'

♦3

the proprietor should be handicapped from
the outset, by a majority vote against him,
but it is intolerable that that majority
should clandestinely prepare a report, sign
it and forward it to the City Clerk without
ever giving the opportunity to their co-
f^ Commissioners to examine it, and that in

arriving at their conclusions they should
treat, as an utter nullity, the whole of the
j evidence given under oath, and adopt two

j standards of valuing, which they themselves

admit are " different," and which the under-
signed are advised, are utterly at variance
with the law.

26. The undersigned respectfully submit
that the Report and Proceedings of the
majority are not only illegal and should be
set aside, but that they constitute a great
injustice to the Proprietor, from which she
■' should be relieved.

Will you have the goodness to have this
communication brought to the attention of
Ilis Worship the Mayor, the Chairman of
29

the Finance Committee, and the City At-
torneys.
We have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
(Sgd.) MICHAEL GUERIN,
DANIEL FORD,

Commissioners for
Dame Margaret Brennan,
(Mrs M.P.Ryan.)

The undersigned, who sat as Commis-
sioners in the cases of Peter Donovan,
Michael McGum and Daniel Gallery, and
who were present at all the sitting of the
Commission in connection with the City's
acquisition of the properties of Mr. Dono-
van and Mrs. Ryan, concurred in the fore-
going statement.

(Sgd.) J. H. KENNEDY,
Commissioner for Daniel Gallery
and Michael McGum.
(Sgd.) G. W. PARENT.
Commissioner for Peter Donovan,
Daniel Gallery and Michael McGum.
30

♦i

I first saw the contents of the said Report
by reading a copy of it on Monday after-
noon, 29th February, 1904.

(Sgd.) G. W. PARENT.

IN THE MATTER OF PETER DONO-
VAN, ESQUIRE,
(Another Proprietor.)

Mr. Donovan's land is No. 1413 on the
Official Plan, and fronts on Wellington
Street on the one side, and on the street
bordering the Canal on the other. It is
vacant land and exceptionally well situated.
The City propose to acquire ^,7I3 square
feet of it. The award of the majority of
the Commissioners in his case allowed 65
cents per square foot. His land adjoins
Mrs. Ryan's, and the testimony, as well as
the observations, applicable to the one, are
applicable to the other.

His Counsel made the same exceptions
to the jurisdiction and the same suggestions
31

as to the true construction of the Statutes
as in the case of Mrs. Ryan.

Mr. Donovan himself filed a protest sub-
stantially in the same terms as that of Mrs.
Ryan.

As stated above, paragraph i6, Mr.
Donovan sold a portion of the same
block of land to the Federal Govern-
ment in 1877 for the sum of $1.10 a foot,
and, in the same year, Mr. J. H. Joseph
sold a portion of the adjoining land to
the Government at $1.25 per square foot —
nearly double the price allowed Mr. Dono-
van now by the majority of the Com-
missioners, though the pieces then taken
were further removed from the Bridge
than that now sought to be acquired,
which is the nearest piece of private pro-
perty to the(lft3lRh side of the Wellington
Bridge. There is no proof of a decrease
in values of land near the Canal: on the
contrary, there are abundant instances of
increases.

3»

Some of the witnesses (including all
the witnesses for the City) thought that
this piece of hnd had an advantn^'c over
Mrs. Ryan's, in that it adjoined the road
that separated the Canal from it, whereas
*^ others considered that the greater advan-

tage lay with Mrs. Ryan's land on account
of its size, accessibility and general adapt-
ability for a large establishment, commercial
j or manufacturing, or for a hotel. Three

J witnesses, and three only, were examined

1 on behalf of the City to value Mr. Dono-

i van's property, namely, Messrs. Nelson,

' Lavigne and Chartrand. They appraised it

I it at a market value of $i.oo per square

foot. The witnesses for the Proprietor ap-
praised it at from $1.25 to $1.50. The over-
I whelming weight of testimony in this, as

* in Mrs. Ryan's case, was that the land

taken at its market value was worth, at
least, $1.25 per square foot. The Commis-
sioners allowed 65 cents per square foot,
" perplexed " and controlled as they were

by what they call two standards, the legis-
lative valuation and the "market value."
(See paragraph 23, ante.) Two weights
and two measures I

The two Commissioners named by Mr.
Donovan — ^proceeding under protest — were
overruled in their proposal that the sum
to be paid was the "market value," and
that the evidence clearly showed that the
market value was, at least,, $1.25 per square
foot.

In other words, the majority of the Com-
missioners, all employees of the City, none
of whom can claim to be an expert in mar-
ket values of real estate, have put aside the
sworn testimony of all the witnesses — those
called by the City, as well as those of the
Proprietor, — including men of the highest
standing in the City of Montreal, with the
most accurate knowledge of the locality
and of the adaptability of the land in ques-
tion for development, and have substituted
their own individual opinions therefor.
34

Mr. Donovan's (.'oniniissioners were
Daniel Ford and ' ! W. Parent, Esquires,
and they were s lujecteci to ihe same treat-
ment as the Coi, n'issioners in Mrs. Ryan's
case.

If such a state of things can exist, there
is no security for the land owner in the City
of Montreal, against rapacious aggression —
all the more intolerable because there is no
appeal from the homologated report of a
majority of the Commissioners.